featured blog posts

The people who shed crocodile tears about health care rationing five years ago don't talk about the rationing that we have now (and had then), but they were right to be outraged. We should all be outraged that, in the richest country on the planet, people are denied needed care on the basis of wealth and income.

It is honorable and important to fight for what is right. And elections are by their nature adversarial contests where one candidate wins and one loses. But there needs to be something more. When the election is over our leaders need to work together for the common good.

Fifty years ago, just five years after the FDA approved the first birth control pill, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut state law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception," thereby making birth control legal nationwide for married couples.

Persistence pays off. Let's remember this as we celebrate 50 years of Medicaid on July 30. Almost 70 million people in the U.S. turn to Medicaid for their health coverage. But Medicaid is much more than the country's top health insurer. It's also a key battleground for the future of our country.

Two weeks ago, we kind of went out on a limb (the polling evidence was not all that clear when we wrote it) and subtitled our previous column: "Donald Trump, Frontrunner." Since that time, such a statement has gone from being a wild prediction to becoming an equally-wild reality.

Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican presidential candidate from Florida, may be frustrated that his campaign is lacking traction, but there is no excuse for him to say that the president has "no class." His comment is a feeble attempt to get attention because he is lagging behind.

The problem with white privilege is that the concept is painfully easy to refute. I'm referring to white individuals who hear the word "privilege" thrown at them and interpret it as an individual attack rather than as a societal fact.

As part of a pledge to protect the middle class, Hillary Clinton is taking a second look at aspects of the ACA that hurt working men and women. That's good news, and the only responsible position for politicians interested in providing more and better healthcare at lower cost.

Even though the first 50 years of the 20th century were pretty barbaric due to two extremely bloody world wars, I still believe the arc of history bends towards progress and the pace has accelerated in the last 50 years.

When the CEOs of Aetna and Humana announced a few days ago that they had agreed to a deal in which Aetna will pay $37 billion for Louisville-based Humana, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pointed the finger of blame straight at Obamacare.

Has the court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lost its ideological marbles and, gasp, turned liberal? That's the billion-dollar question observers of the high tribunal are asking in the wake of the tumultuous October 2014 term.

If Obamacare is here to stay, funding for it must be addressed. The Obama administration can't use gimmicks like a tanning tax to distract from who is really going to pay for this law: policyholders who will see the cost of their insurance skyrocket.

It's tempting, this summery week, to sit and savor the sweet victory that was handed us by the Supreme Court in late June with the King v. Burwell decision. The court's ruling protected the health care subsidies that allow 6.4 million people to afford their health insurance.

Among the losers -- in addition to the people enrolled in the insurers' health plans -- will be many of the employees of the acquired companies, and taxpayers in the cities that come out on the short end of the stick when the combined companies decide where the corporate headquarters will be.